> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-sparql-dev-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sparql-dev-
> request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Nuutti Kotivuori
> Sent: 05 July 2008 16:22
> To: public-sparql-dev@w3.org; public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
> Subject: SPARQL specification inconsistency
>
>
> Hello,
>
> In the latest SPARQL specification, in section 9.1, the ORDER BY
> clause, there is a bit that says:
>
> ,----
> | SPARQL also fixes an order between some kinds of RDF terms that
> | would not otherwise be ordered:
> |
> | 1. ...
> |
> | A plain literal is lower than an RDF literal with type xsd:string of
> | the same lexical form.
> `----
>
> The last two lines there are the interesting ones. Yet, directly below
> that it says:
>
> ,----
> | SPARQL does not define a total ordering of all possible RDF
> | terms. Here are a few examples of pairs of terms for which the
> | relative order is undefined:
> |
> | * ...
> | * "a" and "a"^^xsd:string (a simple literal and an xsd:string)
> | * ...
> `----
>
> As I read this, this piece is contradicting the one said just a
> paragraph above it.
>
> Hopefully a clarification on this could be written to the errata (or
> however these things are handled).
>
> -- Naked
Thanks for comments - this ought to be fixed. I've added it to my list of errata that need to be done sometime and I'll find out what the process is. I think they get batched together so as not to have many micro-changes.
Andy